Greetings Everyone,

I am using a professional WB chart and manually white balancing. I am still getting a slight blue cast. I was able to remove some blue via the custom presets. This blue cast is noticable in ALL color temperatures except under tungsten lighting......which makes sense.

Lou, would you mind sharing what presets corrected the blue cast?

No, that's exactly it. I suggest to look also at my post about 32-bit color manipulation to get a confirmation of why the process works. Our cameras capture at 8-bits per channel. Setting the camera to capture a neutral image causes the device to use the most out of those poor 8 bits. Once in post you gain in using this approach by being able to tweak those colors, in 32 bit mode, extensively. On the other hand, if you create the look in camera you will not be able to modify much because the look has removed some parts of the spectrum that you cannot re-gain. I'm gonna post something to clarify this concept later on my blog.

Fixing blue cast
 

All right, there are enough posts about the blue casts. If there is anyone in the SF bay area, I live in Santa Cruz, that has an A1 with blue cast please contact me via PM. We can arrange a meeting and calibrate the A1 to avoid that shift in color. It seems to me that there are two versions of the color matrix in this camera and one is not the same that I used to create TrueColor.

More than 6000!
 

I just looked at the count. We had more than 6,000 views for this thread in a little more than 10 days! Holy cow!

Paolo,
I think it still could be the erroneous first posting of the preset, that is still plaguing people...

I see. OK, so, if you are using the premade files please verify the parameters after you load it with the version that is posted on my website. Is there a way of deleting the first file posted?

Is truecolor the new king? After Vividrgb?
No it's not, you tried to bring the A1 in color to the JVC. Like the German settings tried to bring the A1 in color with the Sony pd150. Over the top with correcting (+ 40 0r -50..) and looking at the scope, but with black press on.

I don't like this approach, maximal latitude is not with compressed blacks. You really think they have no scope in Canons laboratory? You think that true color is something that exist?

A hype.

No, that was not what I did. I used an radio-spectrometer calibrated chart to obtain an objective reading of the camera and made adjustments from there. There was no connection with the JVC HD100.

Nobody is forcing you to use it. I gave this to people to freely use it and test it. Part of doing this and using the Web is to gain peer review. So far you are the only one who had anything negative to say about it.

I have no idea how Canon works or what kind of procedures they use in calibrating the cameras. I know this though: when I released TrueColor for the HD100 it got immediately adopted worldwide by hundreds of shooters. The results they got where much more improved compared to the standard settings. And you would think that JVC has vectorscopes as well. When the HD200 came out JVC asked me to make a TrueColor configuration for the new camera, which uses a different processor. You would think that they have enough expertise, people and equipment to do it themselves and they do but there are evidently other consideration or they would not have provided a full HD250 plus lens to me for a month to come up with the configuration.

It's a well know fact in the industry that all high-end cameras need calibration. See the DSC website for articles about it. In fact ,the DSC Labs charts are used in the industry, both TV and Film, exactly because cameras require calibration. Even expensive ones like the Varicam or the F900. See also "Digital Moviemaking" by Scott Billups for detailed information why this is a reality. You would think that a camera that costs $100,000 would be perfectly ready to go out of the box. If that was the case than DSC would not have any business.

Also, you would wonder why Canon spent time and effort in providing an adjustable color matrix if the factory settings were just fine. It would be much easier and cheaper to not provide any adjustability at all. Canon knows better and provided an incredible amount of adjustability at this price point because it simply makes sense.

TrueColor for the A1 has been verified by other shooters to be a good solution that gives natural skin tones and vivid colors. I gave it away for free. Use it or not, it doesn't make any difference to me but I hope that this effort contributes to the ability of shooters to obtain better images. It's just another tool available to you.

Yes, you used a DSC card and a scope that is available in almost any studio.
I read on your log that you did it for a client, you do not have an A1, and you did the same on the JVC. I understand that it was not to achieve the same look.

I read a lot of negative about blue cast. You ask people to consider a donation via paypal. Nothing wrong there.

Yes, you can calibrate camera's to your personal taste or to match another camera or the circumstances you are working in. You can do that on line in the studio or off line in a memory file you can share with other cam operators. That is normal behavior for many years in professional cams.

see above, why it is good to have adjustable color.

Don't get me wrong, always happy with a free meal! Cook you own meal that will taste best.
But 'true color' does not exist, light temperatures are changing during the recording and so shift the colors. Specially if you alter color in a high area -like you did in the red/green matrix (+40) - you see color shift in a scale like the blue when the temperature is changing.

If you want a setting that gives you 'room to play with' in post CC, better do not crunch the blacks, make that setting in the correction, same with the white roll of, to obtain the max result. Try to maximize the available latitude.

If there was a setting that gives you 'truecolor' it was a setting that was part of any camera, it is not.

It seems to me that your main objection about this is because of the name and I understand that it might sound a bit pretentious but I do have something in defense of it. When I released the first version of my configuration I didn't give it a name. I sent to Tim Dashwood, one of the trusted moderators of this board, for review and he posted it on DVInfo.net with the moniker "TrueColor". I didn't claim that my configuration was the one to give you true accuracy, other people used the term and it stuck. I find it just convenient because it defines the intentions of the scene file. Not to create a "look" in camera, something that I find being the wrong approach, but instead to cause a given camera to be as close to 1:1 as possible.
Regarding the blacks I already mentioned before that the original configuration was calibrated by using the reflectivity of the black chip on the chart, something that is close to the darkest object that you can have in the scene but that is not as dark as cavity black. It's very easy to apply a simple correction and raise the pedestal to 1-1.5IRE. Basically 1 or 2 clicks higher than the config that I gave. That's all you need to get a little more definition in the black. There is also another consideration here. Many times the result that we see from the NLE, without adjustments, is not completely accurate. I found that many clips that I shot looked too dark at first but after applying a color corrector, like Colorista, AE's levels or FCP 3-way CC, you can gain definition in the blacks. If this is the case then there is no crushing, the software cannot retrieve what's not there but if it does bring details back then the scene file has capture those dark tones as expected.

Being angry about about the TRUCOLOR preset is like being angry about the AVGFILM film preset "Average film stock? It would be impossible to emulate the average film stock...lighting....chemical....DOF...Hulk smash!".

Paolo made a preset. He showed us how he achieved it. He suggested how it could be used. He didn't say "all you suckers better use this preset or else you footage will smell like fish".

Paolo,

Whether I use the preset or not I just wanted to say thank you. I do like the look it gives. I am, like others, experiencing a slight blue cast but nothing that wasn't taken care of by a little CC in FCP.

Thank you to you and all that post your presets. I always feel bad for guys who post little shareware/freeware things on the web and then get flamed about them.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Easy-Peezy

my footage is gonna smell like fish?!

Now - that's funny.

Discussing on the web and fundamental critics are not the same as flaming, and it is not the name that was the fundamental part of my criticism's. Good things happen on the web in good collaboration.

Blacks: to see definition in the blacks on your [good] broadcast monitor, it is better to have it in the material. You can easily compress it later during CC, it's common sense to preserve the blacks in the recoding.

But indeed you can change the settings in truecolor , you can change a lot settings to make it into something you like and trust. Thanks for your addition.

What do we eat for free today? Smoked Salmon?

True Color
 

One more time. I do not get a blue cast when using this preset. A few here do but I and I believe most users do not get this blue cast. Perhaps its in the eye of the observer or perhaps the blue cast problem (if there is a problem) is cause by something else! If I knew how, I would run a poll of users here to see how many do or do not get this blue cast. Anyway I wish to thank Paolo Ciccone again, and as he stated if you don't like it don't uses it. He never professed it was the Holy Grail of presets, he just offers it (free) for those who might like it.

I like it!
 

Haven't tested the preset extensively but I did shoot a short clip of a Sunday School egg hunt indoors. There was a mix of outdoor light coming in through a window and florescent fixtures on the ceilings.

I manually dialed in WB to get a slightly warmer look and the footage came out looking great. The skin tones looked natural and softly-warm as I wanted them to be.

The thing that I love most about this preset is that it negates the redness that seems to pervade the A1's footage on most of the other presets.

My only advice would be to set BLK to Medium, PED and SET to -6. This way you retain slightly more information in the blacks.

I'd really like truecolour with B.O. or old socks

"what's that smell?"

"it's the new preset I'm using"

Coming up next: TrueFish!

I use the small DSC chart, the grayscale portion of it as it is guaranteed to be neutral. I found that other white cards can have a bias toward cold or warm, usually "warming cards" are slightly blueish. Since we are on the subject I just want to throw a reminder to include a few frames with the white card at the beginning of the tape. That will make adjusting the white balance in post a snap. For example using FCP 3Way CC you can simply click with the eye dropper. Same thing for Colorista.

Paul, as promised I put together a post that illustrates with images the advantage of not creating a "in camera" look by tweaking the color matrix. The example is a it extreme but it drive the point, IMHO, that neutral settings in camera give you a lot of flexibility. Here is the link: http://paolociccone.com/blog/?p=27

Paolo, thanks again for the preset. Actually, I would like it if you could come up with a Truefish preset as well. Fish are one of my favorite subjects. If I manage to get an underwater housing for the A1 before I change to some other camera I will probably use Truecolor. I try to get that look in post anyway.

Tom what are some of the horizaontal and vertical res settings that you have liked?

Pat

That's interesting Pat. Are the requirements for underwater shooting much different from land photography?
Not that I can do anything about it, just curious :)

I'd like to throw my thanks in there as well Paolo. Very much appreciate the file.

I'd like to suggest two possible issues with the blue cast.

1) XH-A1 users are accustomed to an overly red picture, so their eyes have adjusted -- thus neutral (red being normal) would appear blue.

2) The white balance dial is calibrated for an overly red picture.

Just thoughts, as I have found when dialing in the white balance with TrueColor that 3200k doesn't look right -- even under 3200k lighting. However, when white balancing with a sheet of paper, everything looked about right.

My camera has a blue cast in this setting which I was able to adjust via the menu. Having been a professional videographer since 1982, I have owned, rented and used more cameras than I can remember. It has been my experience both past and present that the SAME brand cameras can actually have a different colorimetry from each other.....even slightly. This, I assume, is the cause for a different hue when using presets.

I must agree a true WB card is necessary. I did use a pro WB card. My picture is slightly blue. However, as stated above, I virtually eliminated the blue in the presets via the custom menu.


NOTE: Some new videographers, who are in the special event area, tend to WB on a white table cloth or even a white shirt. This is a BIG NO NO!!! The fact is that the cloth appears white but will produce a blue cast due to the type of threading used to manufactor the cloth.


Just my thoughts.

Once again, appreciate your efforts Paolo.

Just tried this preset with my SGpro 35mm adapter. Getting blown red channel very often, even with 0 color gain. Anyone else experiencing this?

I also get a blue cast, even when balancing with a white card. What did you change Lou?

Try this Alex and let me know:




GAM M
KNEE M
BLK M
PED -4
SET -1
SHP 1
HDF M
DHV 0
COR 0
NR1 0
NR2 0
CMX N
CGN 22*
CPH 0
RGN-2
CGN 3
BGN -3
RGM 10
RBM -12
GRM 6
GBM 0
BRM 12
BGM -3

Thanks Lou. By the way, I'm not seeing the blue tint with paolo's settings when using roughly between 3000 and 4000k lights.

Is there any reason you set the sharpness to 1? (I can understand why you didn't keep it at -9 but I thought I heard someone say that a positive value for sharpness was not a good idea.)

I have a waveform monitor for my XH-A1 but I don't have the DSC chart to test these results against the levels set by Paolo. (If anyone wants to send me one I'd be happy to share my results ;-).

Have you done any waveform monitor tests with these new settings?

From the reports in this thread, I can only guess that there are two batches of XH-A1s. I hope there aren't other inconsistencies that will limit how much dynamic range our cameras capture compared to the possibly different version Paolo tested on.

Paolo, maybe you could weigh in?

HD and SD ?
 

Wicked preset. Nice. It's a bit dark but can bring that back. I like that the image is not edgy, and that I can sharpen this up if I need in post. The colour on my Trinitron 12 incher is perfect and true. Thanks again. You can't blow this out though or you are $%^&*(.
No Cine grabbing the high end to pull it down, so you have to control all. Other than that...no blue.

I have a question concerning the TRUECOLOR preset.

Looking at comparisons between the presets, I really like TRUECOLOR's colors, but it seems that the look is rather "soft" and it's not as sharp as say VIVIDRGB. Is this correct? If so, is there any way to make it take sharper pictures without ruining the image? Thanks for your help.

Truecolor's sharpness is set very low, -7 I think, while vividrgb is at something like 1. My understanding was that the low sharpness setting was keep from adding noise while the image is being captured, and a light sharpness was to be done in post if you wanted it. It is discussed by Paolo Ciccone here: http://paolociccone.com/blog/?p=17#more-17

Deke, that's because I turned the detail all the way down. This is because almost every video camera artificially sharpens the picture by darkening the pixels in th high contrast areas. This is an artificial manipulation that can be reproduced easily in post with higher quality and changed scene-by-scene instead of being "baked" in the pixels. BTW, the artificial sharpening is also what gives the "video look" and since my aim is to create a more cinematic look I dialed the detail down. You can increase it to your liking.

Thanks for the help guys! I look forward to giving it a try. I'm new to videography but have heaps of experience in image correction, so I'll be interested to see how the post turns out! Thanks again!

Regarding blown red channel when using Truecolor preset with 35mm adapters.

It's not just me that messed up :)
I've seen footage from other people that shows the same now. It's a very nice preset with the stock lens, but if you plan on shooting with a 35mm adapter be cautious. Even with 0 colorgain you risk clipping the red channel. Dialing in a negative value for colorgain may be a solution, but I haven't tested it myself.

Rene, the type of lens will likely change the color response of the camera and that's another reason to get a chart and do your own calibration. It's impossible to put together a universal "recipe" that will work will every combination of optics.

Paolo,

Thanks for the TrueColor preset for the A1 I really like it for outdoor scenes. I tried several of the others and felt they made the colors unrealistic. Yours does a nice job of putting things close to true and I can correct in post. I'm now limiting my CP's to Canon Factory setting, Panalook2, and TrueColor.

Thanks for a great start!

Been loving this preset. Here's a thread with some beach footage in California I shot using it:

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=123304

I just used this preset, with a few minor tweeks based on the shooting conditions,
on about five hours of shooting for a documentary I'm doing
and I think it's fantastic..
I just wanted to add my thanks to the many posters here,
especially Paolo,
who provided a wealth of information regarding how it was done.
It gives me a look that I wanted but could not get for myself.
Nice work.

David